M/s. SVIL Mines Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1684/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2984 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1684/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S SVIL MINES LTD. (AMALGATED COMPANY OF AMALGATING COMPANY M/S TEXEFX MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD.) E-3, 1 ST FLOOR, PHASE-II, MANGOLPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI -34 (PAN: AAICS5805Q) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, ROOM NO. 331, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJIV SAXENA, ADV. & SH. SHYAM SUNDER, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 21,611/- CLAIMED U/S. 35D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF INDEXATION ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY FOR RS. 2,32,062/-. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ADDITION, MODIFICATION, ALTERATION, AMENDMENT OF ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE ON THE ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE ITS APPLICATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED DECISION IN THE CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC), (LEGAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME IN COLLA TERAL AND SECOND ROUND ALSO). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL AND DO NOT REQUIRE FRESH INVESTIGATION OF FAC TS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. THAT LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING OR MAKING ADDITION U/S. 153A WH ICH WAS BASED ON NO SEARCH MATERIAL. 4. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE A LEGAL GROUND OR EVEN FRESH LEGAL PLEAS OR SUCH LEGA L QUESTIONS AT ANY STAGE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUPPORT THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT S OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VARAS INTERNAT IONAL PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 284 ITR 80(SC) AND NATIONAL 3 THERMAL POWER CO LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 (SC). RECENTLY HONBLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, MUMBAI I N THE CASE OF M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS D CIT, ITA NOS 5018 TO 5022 & 5059/M/10 HAS HELD THAT 'IF PURE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR WHICH FACTS ARE ON RECORD OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUCH A QUESTION ALLOWED T O BE RAISED, IF IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO TO ASSESS THE C ORRECT TAX LIABILITY.' 5. THERE IS NO FRESH MATERIAL REQUIRED TO DECIDE OR ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND WHICH IS BASED ON PURE QUEST ION OF LAW. THE APPELLANT SHALL BE HIGHLY GRATEFUL IF T HE AFORESAID GROUND IS PERMITTED TO BE URGED WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF APPROPRIATE INVALID LEGAL ADVICE AND THESE ARE RAISING PURE QUESTION OF LAW A ND FACTS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND NO FRESH MATERIAL I S REQUIRED TO BE REFERRED TO. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT KEEPI NG IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN T HE CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC) AND DECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, MU MBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS DCIT, ITA NOS 5018 TO 5022 & 5059/M/10 (SUPRA), THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ADMITTED AND DECIDED FIRST. 4 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS (LEGAL) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS PERUSI NG THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ALONGWITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NTPC LIMITED 229 ITR 383 (SUPRA) AS WELL AS ACCORDING TO DECISION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, M UMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS DCIT, ITA NOS 5018 TO 5022 & 5059/M/10, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE VIDE ITS APPLICATION PLACED ON RECORD, ARE PURELY LEGAL GR OUNDS AND DO NOT REQUIRE FRESH FACTS WHICH IS TO BE INVESTIGATED AN D GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ADMIT THE A FORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE AFO RESAID CASE LAWS AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FIRST. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 790/- ON 29.10.20 05. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) AT THE RETURNED INCOME. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 21.3 .2007 IN SURYA VINAYAK GROUP OF CASES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES OF M/S SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. THE GROUP IS HEADED BY SH. SANJAY JAIN AND HIS BROTHER SH. RAJIV JAIN, RES IDENT OF I-42, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI. THE MAIN ALLEGATION AGA INST THIS GROUP WAS 5 THAT THEY HAD TAKEN A LARGE NUMBER OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES BY PAYING CASH TO THE VARIOUS ENTRY OPERATORS. AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION NOTE, A NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 25.9.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT TO FILE T HE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSES SEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 07.10.2009 SUBMITTED THAT THE PREVIOUS RETURN DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 790/- FILED ON 29.10.2005 MAY KINDLY BE DEEMED AS THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S. 153A OF THE ACT. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 25.9.2009 WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSE FIXING THE CASE FOR 08.10.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES U/S. 142(1) & 143(2) OF THE ACT AND QUESTIONNAIRE, THE A.R. OF TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DET AILS. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS ASSESSED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 3,76,080/- A FTER MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 PASSE D U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 7. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24. 12.2009, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.1.2012 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESEEE. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STAT ED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS RELATING TO UPHOL DING THE VALIDITY OF THE 6 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON05.1.2012, IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE AS SESSEE BY THE DECISION DATED 29.8.2017 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF IN DIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TE CHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED IN THE CASE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA REPORT ED (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 VS. INDEX SECURITIES (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE, BUT NOT B ASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATIO N, THEN THESE ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE FURTHE R STATED IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH IN RESPECT OF SUCH ADDITION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE NO RELATION WITH ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND AS SUCH ARE BAD IN LAW BEING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF JURIS DICTION U/S. 153A OF THE I.T. ACT AND THEREFORE STATED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A HAS RIGHTLY BEEN APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THEM. 7 HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURTS AND HENCE, REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE M AY BE DISMISSED. - PR. CIT V INSTRONICS LTD.(2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 357 (DELHI) - GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES (P) LTD. V CIT (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 408 (DELHI). - CIT V SUPER MALLS (P) LTD.(2016) 76 TAXMANN.COM (DE LHI) - PCIT V NAU NIDHI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.(ITA NO. 58/2017)(DELHI) - SSP AVIATION LTD V DCIT (20 TAXMANN.COM 214) (DELHI ) - KAMLESHBHAIDHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL V CIT (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 50 (GUJRAT) - RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI V ACIT(2016) 76 TAXMANN.CO M 311 (GUJARAT) - CIT V CLASSIC ENTERPRISES 35 TAXMANN.COM 244 (ALLA HABAD) 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE CASES REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(DR). WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BECAUSE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SO AS TO DOUBT THE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS NOTE D THAT IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY SE IZED MATERIAL OR OTHER MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVING BE ING FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, LEAVE AL ONE THE QUESTION OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. CIT(DR) ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS BASED UPON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND HENCE, THE ADDITIONS M ADE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS NOW NO 8 MORE RES-INTEGRA, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION DATED 29 .08.2017 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPO RTED IN (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED IN THE CASE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) AND IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 VS. INDEX S ECURITIES (P) LTD. - THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, PUNE VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEADS NOTES):- SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SEAR CH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PER SON (VALIDITY OF NOTICE) ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WHETHER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C , INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERT AIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION HELD, YES WHETH ER WHERE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM RESIDENCE OF PRESIDENT OF ASSESSEE, AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INDICATING CAPITATION FEES RECEIVED BY VARIOUS INST ITUTIONS RUN BY ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH CO-RELATION DOCUM ENT- WISE WITH ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION, NOTICE ISSU ED 9 UNDER SECTION 153C HAD RIGHTLY BEEN QUASHED AND SET ASIDE HELD, YES (IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE). - THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ITA NOS. 707, 7 09 AND 713 OF 2014 OF DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION TH AT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF T HE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEAR CH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUC H AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A Y IN 10 WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WIL L BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTH ER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT D OES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ITA NOS. 707, 709 AND 713 OF 2014 OF ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTIO N ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABAT ED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEAR CH) 11 AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERN ED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ON E. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EA CH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND A NY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WI TH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 3 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005 - 06 AND 2006-07.ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEA RCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. 12 - THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDEX SECURITIES LTD. 86 TAXMANN.COM 84 (DELHI) HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEADS NOTES) :- SECTION 153COF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - SEARCH AN D SEIZURE - ASSESSMENT OF ANY OTHER PERSON (CONDITION PRECEDENT - POSITION PRIOR TO 1-6-2015) - ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 - WHETHER ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C (PRIOR TO ITS AMEND MENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1-6-2015) QUA 'OTHER PERSON' IS TH AT SEIZED DOCUMENTS FORMING BASIS OF SATISFACTION NOTE MUST NOT MERELY 'PERTAIN' TO OTHER PERSON BUT MUST BELONG TO 'OTHER PERSON' - HELD, YES - WHETHER IN O RDER TO JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C, DOCUMENTS SEIZED MUST BE INCRIMINATING AND MUST RELATE TO EACH OF ASSESSMENT YEARS WHOSE ASSESSMENT S ARE SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED - HELD, YES - DURING COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF A COMPANY, A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED TRIAL BALANCE AND BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESS EE COMPANY FOR PERIOD 1-4-2010 TO 13-9-2010 - THOUGH SEIZED DOCUMENTS MIGHT PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE, SAME WA S 13 NOT PROVED TO BELONG TO ASSESSEE - FURTHER, SAID DOCUMENTS DID NOT RELATE TO RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA RS AND SECONDLY, THEY COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE INCRIMIN ATING - WHETHER SINCE, BOTH ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C WERE NOT MET, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WAS UNJUSTIFIED - HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS AFORES AID, AS AFORESAID, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 AND DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED TH E ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE OTHER ISSUES HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE, HENCE, NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/12/2017. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 07/12/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES